examination hearing in Arkansas

1991Nelson v. State, 297 Ark. 58 , 759 S.W.2d 215 (1988).

1991Nelson v. State, 297 Ark. 58 , 759 S.W.2d 215 (1988).

2006The case of People v. Stitely, 108 P.3d 182 (Cal. 2005) addressed the defense and an examination of the defense aids our analysis.

1997In Brawley v. State, 306 Ark. 609 , 816 S.W.2d 598 (1991), it was argued that a delay of over nine months in getting a mental examination was attributable to the State and thus not to be excluded from the one-year period.

1997In Brawley v. State, 306 Ark. 609 , 816 S.W.2d 598 (1991), it was argued that a delay of over nine months in getting a mental examination was attributable to the State and thus not to be excluded from the one-year period.

1971Barnard v. Keathley, supra, and Miller v. Goodwin and Beavers, 246 Ark. 552 , 439 S. W. 2d 308 (1969).

1971Barnard v. Keathley, supra, and Miller v. Goodwin and Beavers, 246 Ark. 552 , 439 S. W. 2d 308 (1969).

1930In the next case cited and relied on by appellant, Ince v. State, 77 Ark. 418 , 88 S. W. 818 , the court simply held that the lower court did not commit error in refusing an instruction which told the jury that, if no motive wras shown, it was a circumstance in favor of defendant’s innocence to be considered by the jury.

1930In the next case cited and relied on by appellant, Ince v. State, 77 Ark. 418 , 88 S. W. 818 , the court simply held that the lower court did not commit error in refusing an instruction which told the jury that, if no motive wras shown, it was a circumstance in favor of defendant’s innocence to be considered by the jury.

1930In other words, it is for you to determine whether the defendant was under obligation to inspect the cold cutter in question before delivering it to plaintiff, you being instructed that the duty of the defendant under such circumstances was to act as an ordinarily prudent man would have done under similar circumstances.” By an examination of the instruction approved in Hunt v. Hurst, supra, it will be seen that the instruction above set out follows exaetty the language of the Hunt case except where change in the language is necessary to make it applicable to a slightly different state of facts

1918Moreover, appellant did not make any specific request of the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff (appellee) based upon any permanent injury, as was the case in Railroad Co. v. Bird, supra. There are no errors in the record and the judgment is therefore affirmed.